Talk:Polistes annularis

A fact from Polistes annularis appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 March 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in the north, the North American paper wasp Polistes annularis has rust-red markings on a predominantly black thorax, but in the south, the thorax is mostly rust-red with black markings?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/March.

Wikipedia

Insects: Hymenoptera Low‑importance

	Insects portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Hymenoptera task force (assessed as Low-importance).

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Fall 2013. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Washington University in St. Louis/Behavioral Ecology (Fall 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Fall 2014. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Washington University in St. Louis/Behavioral Ecology (Fall 2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

Review: November 2013

Glenn, excellent job with all the work you poured into this article! Here just a few critiques I have:

I don't think that the summary paragraph actually summarizes all of your major points in the article. While you do briefly say a word or two from each heading, could you expand? By adding a sentence or two from each headings information, I think it would greatly strengthen your article.
PICTURES! Not only would they spice up your article, but they could be used to stress some major points that your article is trying to make. While I looked through Wikimedia for you, I found hardly anything directly relating to Polistes annularis." However, you could include photos about the range of your organism, the nest structure, honey caching, food collection, etc.
Formatting advice: I really want you to break up the "Ecology and Distribution" heading into more main headings, instead of just having multiple subheadings. For example, lump together "Food Collection" and "Honey caching" under a new heading. Pull together 3.1.1 through 3.1.5 into a separate heading, entitled "Colony Social Structure" (or something similar). This will hopefully help break up the monotony of the "Behavior..." section and add more "diversity" to your article.

Overall, great work! It was a pleasure to read. Jdhale (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing, August to December 2013

Undergraduate Peer Review (Washington University in St. Louis The behavior section is highly informative, and I only made a few grammatical corrections. Perhaps, a small clarification on the comparison of the sex ratio between P. annularis and P. exclamans would be useful. Additionally, if you could be more specific about the "variations" that take place in the colony cycle, I think this will improve the clarity of that subsection. Overall, very strong work on this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gschalet (talk --Gschalet (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)• contribs) 01:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit suggestions Oct 2013

The introduction needs some work. It's supposed to be a summary of the article, but it is missing key information and concepts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudas 91 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing, August to December 2013

Hello:

I will be editing this article as part of a Behavioral Ecology class (Biology 372) at Washington University in St. Louis. Please see the banner and link above for more details, and feel free to contact me if you have any constructive criticism.

Gharris7 (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Gharris7[reply]

Peer review

-I thought the first sentence of the Colony cycle section was a little unclear. I wanted to change it but I am not fully sure what the point you are trying to make is. Are you saying that it varies in comparison to other wasps? Are the female queens able to switch castes, meaning they are no longer the queen? I'm not sure if it's a simple concept that needs to be worded differently, or if it needs more background.

-I think if you are mentioning relatedness and Hamilton's rule, it would be helpful to better explain that concept.

-In the sex ratios section, changed "rations" to "ratios."

-I think if you are going to add to this article the sex ratios section is an area to add more information. I think the information is very good, but there could be some more connecting information added to bring it all together. For someone who does not have a lot of experience in behavior studies, what is currently there might be hard to follow.

-Honey caching - "first animal" needs to be changed; are you saying it is the "first wasp" to not store honey?

-The queen determination section was very clear and had a lot of good information.

-I thought this article was very good! There are just a few little things that need to be fixed. If you are looking for sections to expand upon, as mentioned above the sex ratios section could use some more information. The last three sections in the behavior sub-heading could also be fleshed out. But overall really great and I learned a lot! Hansika.n (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

peer review 2

I thought that the new additions really helped boost the Behavior section of this organism. I made a few small changes to make certain sentences flow better.

One note, you should change the Polistes annularis to P. annularis because you use the later more frequently. I think this article can make good article if you could add a description and range section. If I can think of anything else to add I will let you know. Good job though Glenn! kaijones5245 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaijones5245 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review, Round 2

1. The first paragraph in the Dominance Hierarchy section might do well with a few more in text citations. 2. The Dominance Hierarchy, Foundress Grouping and Foundress Eviction and Mortality sections would be more navigable if they were split up into smaller sections or paragraphs.

Otherwise, the article is detailed and informative.

Amruthapk (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Good behavior section and great amount and variety of information! Here are my suggestions:

Foundress grouping: The section about colony success needs clarification. What do you mean by colony success? I see success at producing young, and survival success, but I don’t know which one you mean.
Colony cycle: I would define Hamilton’s Rule and explain how it relates to whether subordinates chose to reproduce or not.
Honey caching: You may want to define hibernacula. I don’t understand what it is or how it relates to the honey caching.
Altruism: Expand on what you mean by inclusive fitness and why it should affect the level of altruism between workers and the queen. It may also be good to add a sentence about kin selection and why altruism actually benefits worker’s genes.
Winter behavior and cold hardiness: What is trehalose, and why does it help with winter survival?

Hope this helps! Blubird25 (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Critique

Explain Hamilton’s rule in addition to just linking it
Maybe connect ‘colony cycle’ and ‘queen determination’ by putting ‘queen determination’ under ‘colony cycle’ as both talk about how queens are replaced and chosen
Overall, the article was very informative and to the point.

Pocketkings (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding GA nominations

~~This article is not ready to be nominated. Please hold off until I have fixed some of the issues.~~

I'm presently out of ideas for what to add. I would greatly value outside criticism at this point. More pictures would be nice, but I can't find any that are free/permissible to use. Nonetheless, I'm quite content with these additions, and hope that I have improved the article. While this article was not classified as a stub when I first began working on it (see here), it may as well have been. I am glad to have (hopefully) improved the article, and am thankful for the critiques of my peers and from outside editors. Gharris7 (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)GHarris7[reply]

To reviewers: I have read the discussion here, as well as some of the GA reviews on classmates' articles. If you decide to quickfail this article, please be more specific on what needs work. For example, if something needs to be cited, please let me know what needs to be cited, if possible. My classmates did not receive such treatment, even those who cited their articles decently well. One thing of note: if I had a paragraph that drew from one single source, I listed the source at the end of the paragraph instead of multiple times within the section. If this needs to be changed, let me know. Thank you for your time and service. Gharris7 (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Gharris7[reply]

Further Review of Article

In this article, I made various revisions of syntax and concision, along with adding hyperlinks to different pages in order to clarify complex or potentially unclear terms (such as “ferruginous”). I made a minor reorganization of the Description section placing the description of thorax and antennae coloration together, followed by the author’s brief remark on the species’ size. Given the fact that this article was extremely well written as it was, I did not have to make any major revisions beyond grammatical edits and minor reorganization.--Gschalet (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing this fall

Hello, I am a student at Washington University in St. Louis and I will be editing this article as part of my Behavioral Ecology class. Feel free to contact me with advice and constructive criticism. Carzhong (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Class Suggestions

Under the Dominance Hierarchy section, I added the sub-section “proportional variation” since this still pertained to dominance but was very narrow and more specific than the rest of the information preceding it. Please feel free to change the name to something more appropriate, but I think this information deserves to be separated for clarity and structural purposes. I changed some sentence structure and grammar in “pre-nesting aggregations,” and a couple changes in the following sections. I think you can elaborate in the “predators, parasites, and defense” section by explaining what the “necrophoric responses from ants” looks like. This is really interesting, and I’d love to read more about it. In addition, since the page is very thorough and long, it would be nice to see more pictures interspersed within the article. Chiararosenbaum (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC) Chiara Rosenbaum[reply]

Peer Review

The article was very detailed and thorough. A few places I suggest improvement included splitting up the sections on Foundress Grouping and Foundress Eviction and Mortality into smaller paragraphs. Other than that I have revised some of the syntax of sentences throughout. This article is well on its way to becoming a good article, and I would say the biggest changes should come from linking more vocabulary and concision. VGurusamy (

Peer Review

The article was very detailed and thorough. A few places I suggest improvement included splitting up the sections on Foundress Grouping and Foundress Eviction and Mortality into smaller paragraphs. Other than that I have revised some of the syntax of sentences throughout. This article is well on its way to becoming a good article, and I would say the biggest changes should come from linking more vocabulary and concision. VGurusamy — Preceding undated comment added 04:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]